Google says it won't take down anti-Muslim clip

Sep 16, 2012 by Andrew Miga
Libyan investigators leave the U.S. Consulate, in Benghazi, Libya Saturday, Sept. 15 2012 after finishing their investigation regarding the attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens on the night of Tuesday. The American ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed when a mob of protesters and gunmen overwhelmed the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, setting fire to it in outrage over a film that ridicules Islam's Prophet Muhammad. Ambassador Chris Stevens, 52, died as he and a group of embassy employees went to the consulate to try to evacuate staff as a crowd of hundreds attacked the consulate Tuesday evening, many of them firing machine-guns and rocket-propelled grenades. (AP Photo/Mohammad Hannon)

(AP)—Google is refusing a White House request to take down an anti-Muslim clip on YouTube, but is restricting access to it in certain countries.

The White House said Friday that it had asked to review whether the video violated its terms of use. owns YouTube, the online video sharing site.

YouTube said in a statement Friday that the video is widely available on the Web and is "clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube."

The short film "Innocence of Muslims" denigrates Islam and the . It played a role in igniting mob violence against U.S. embassies across the Middle East. And it has been blamed for playing a role in violence in , where the U.S. ambassador and three others were killed though the exact cause of the attacks is under investigation.

U.S. and Libyan officials are investigating whether the in Libya were a cover for militants, possibly al-Qaida sympathizers, to carry out a coordinated attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and kill Americans. Washington has deployed investigators to try and track down militants behind the attack.

While the protests intensified over the video, YouTube blocked access to the clip in Libya and Egypt. YouTube cited "the very sensitive situations" in those two countries. Later YouTube also blocked access to the video in India and Indonesia after their governments told Youtube the video broke their laws.

The controversy underscores how some have been thrust into debates over the limits of free speech.

In its Friday statement, YouTube said that outside of Libya, Egypt, India and Indonesia, the video will remain on its website.

"We work hard to create a community everyone can enjoy and which also enables people to express different opinions," the YouTube statement said. "This can be a challenge because what's OK in one country can be offensive elsewhere. This video—which is widely available on the Web—is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube. However, we've restricted access to it in countries where it is illegal such as India and Indonesia as well as in Libya and Egypt, given the very sensitive situations in these two countries. This approach is entirely consistent with principles we first laid out in 2007."

YouTube's community guidelines say the company encourages and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. But YouTube says it does not permit hate speech.

"'Hate speech' refers to content that promotes hatred against members of a protected group," the guidelines say. "Sometimes there is a fine line between what is and what is not considered hate speech. For instance, it is generally okay to criticize a nation, but not okay to make insulting generalizations about people of a particular nationality."

Explore further: Twitter tries to block images of Foley killing

4.7 /5 (9 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Online rights groups fear violence backlash

Sep 15, 2012

Internet rights champions on Friday were fearful that free speech online may be among the victims of violence spurred by an anti-Islam video posted to YouTube.

YouTube adds video editing tool

Sep 15, 2011

YouTube on Wednesday added an editing tool that lets creators of videos make changes to snippets after they have been uploaded to the popular website.

YouTube adds online video editing tool

Jun 17, 2010

YouTube users can now edit their own videos online. The Google-owned video-sharing site added an online editing tool this week that allows YouTube users to combine multiple videos, shorten a video or add soundtracks ...

YouTube Limits Cookie Tracking on White House Website

Jan 23, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- With the launch of President Obama's White House website, three days ago, there has been extensive use of YouTube videos on the site. As we all know Google now owns YouTube and tracks every vi ...

Recommended for you

Twitter tries to block images of Foley killing

10 hours ago

Twitter and some other social media outlets are trying to block the spread of gruesome images of the beheading of journalist James Foley by Islamic State militants, while a movement to deny his killers publicity ...

New generation is happy for employers to monitor them on social media

10 hours ago

Will employers in the future watch what their staff get up to on social media? Allowing bosses or would-be employers a snoop around social media pages is a growing trend in the US, and now a new report from PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Said Business School suggest ...

User comments : 171

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dschlink
1 / 5 (6) Sep 16, 2012
"Do no harm." Unless it would reduce your page hits.
semmsterr
5 / 5 (11) Sep 16, 2012
Harm? The Posting of a video about... whatever, is equated with physical violence and murder? Does anyone understand what's at stake here?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Make note, TEMPORARY. It's the core of their belief, they will keep pushing.
freethinking
3.7 / 5 (22) Sep 16, 2012
Any American public official who publically condemns, or blames this video clip for the violence, is a supporter of the terrorist agenda and a hater of free speech and freedom.

I have not seen this video, nor do I intend to, but to blame it for violence is stupidity at best, and at worst is supporting violence and the suppression of free speech.

What do you think the terrorist thought when they heard that the producer was taken in for questioning? When Obama and other government officials condemned this video, they showed their support for the suppression of free speech.
igginz
5 / 5 (1) Sep 16, 2012
I would propose that "censorship" is still occuring WITH the video online. If censhorship is more broadly defined to included "Lack of Control over the way Content is Employed" rather than simply loosing one point of control - "Distribution", then the author of this video is STILL being Censored. This is happening by the attribution of the content to persons other than the author. Freedom of expression isn't really absolute; libel, telling your boss off. Typically will not be free of reprisal or consequence.
adrianv
5 / 5 (6) Sep 16, 2012
Any religion that has a following that believes that is has the right to limit free speech in the wider world, is deluded. Not everyone agrees with Christianity. Not everyone agrees with Islam. Throwing your toys and demanding violence when someone disagrees with you is a sign of immaturity. No religion has the right to lord it above any other.
ryggesogn2
3.5 / 5 (13) Sep 16, 2012
For once, good for Google.

It moronic to believe these Muslims spontaneously attacked on 9/11 due to a video that's been posted for for quite some time.

What did the Egyptian rioters mean when they were chanting, "Obama, Obama, we are all Osamas now". Could it be they were upset that Obama killed Osama and brags about it whenever he can?

It's obvious that Islamisist and many others here at physorg don't need any excuse for hating the US as they proclaim it everyday.

"Hatred of America is a form of self-hatred, the fruit of frustration and despair in the Muslim world at their relative decline. And not only in the Muslim world. Anti-Americanism will always be with us so long as people need a bogeyman on which to hang the evils of the world. " http://fullcommen...america/
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 16, 2012
"Bill Maher made a film that mocked Islam.

Oh, yes, he did.

Bill Maher also contributed $1 million to a pro-Obama super PAC."
http://thepeoples...668.html
kochevnik
1.8 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2012
@freeFromthinking When Obama and other government officials condemned this video, they showed their support for the suppression of free speech.
You're just for it because Obama is against it. You don't have any inward ethic compass, but only a tape recorder of RMoney's last decrees.

If you believed in your constitution you would either leave every religionist alone and not bomb them with drones, or your would support killing every last religionist. As it stands the USA just kills people randomly like any terrorist. And everyone notices you don't fuck with nations that have nukes, so you're responsible for world nuclear proliferation.

@ryggesogn2 It's obvious that Islamisist and many others here at physorg don't need any excuse for hating the US as they proclaim it everyday.
Why do you care? You're Norwegian
ryggesogn2
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 16, 2012
you would either leave every religionist alone and not bomb them with drones,

The US will leave Islamists, atheists, communists, ...alone as long as they do not threaten the security of the US.

Like many, my ancestors escaped the dismal conditions in Norway in the late 1800s and became US citizens and are quite disappointed in the culture of Norway today.
VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2012
How about any American who opposes the publication of WikiLeaks, or the imprisonment of Bradley Manning on suspicion of speaking freely about American Government secrets?

"Any American public official who publically condemns, or blames this video clip for the violence, is a supporter of the terrorist agenda and a hater of free speech and freedom." - freethinking

I'm sure you aren't a hypocrite. You label yourself a "free" thinker don't you?

julianpenrod
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 16, 2012
In fact, the ideal of free speech is automatically extended only to speech that is well meant. Anything that is intended to be antagonistic, deceiving, misleading for the purpose of causing harm, or intended for any of a number of patently carven harmful purposes is not protected. In other words, the defenders of
free speech" here are saying it's alright to put up placards with racial epithets in an inner city neighborhood, to shourt "Fire!" in a crowded theatre that is not on fire, to publish a film accusing a major figure of being a child rapist. Curious these same defenders never condemned web sites removing comments they don't like from their blogs. In fact, New World Order supporters say that private property trumps Constitutional rights. If it was revealed an al Qaeda agent made the film to start a riot, would the defenders of "free speech" protect that individual?
VendicarD
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2012
Is that why the U.S. invaded Grenada, Honduras, Nicaragua, Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, funded anti-government terrorists in Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Chile, and a host of other countries?

"The US will leave Islamists, atheists, communists, ...alone as long as they do not threaten the security of the US. " - RyggTard

VendicarD
2 / 5 (4) Sep 16, 2012
Of course. All moral, thinking people are Obama supporters.

"Bill Maher also contributed $1 million to a pro-Obama super PAC." -RyggTard.

Why aren't you?

VendicarD
1 / 5 (2) Sep 16, 2012
It is moronic to believe that when America invaded Afghanistan they would be met as Liberators, and allies, rather than enemies to be exterminated.

"It moronic to believe these Muslims spontaneously attacked on 9/11 due to a video that's been posted for for quite some time." - RyggTard

"Donald Rumsfeld has told U.S. troops in Iraq they have shown the world America is a land of liberators not occupiers, and that they can return home once Iraqi security forces are trained and confident." - http://edition.cn...umsfeld/
VendicarD
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 16, 2012
I wiped my backside with a page from the national post once, and laughed the day it went bankrupt for the second time.

"Hatred of America is a form of self-hatred" <- Comment from Canadian right wing Rag.

If you read it in the National Post, you know it is a lie.

geokstr
2.7 / 5 (12) Sep 16, 2012
According to that well-known rightwing shill, National Public Radio, the President of Lybia says that the assassination of the ambassador was preplanned and coordinated long before the video became known in the Muslim world:
http://www.npr.or...ys?sc=nd

Meanwhile, the Obama admin UN Ambassador lies through her teeth about the video being the cause of the "spontaneous" protests to protect Hillary and Barrack:
http://usnews.nbc...sly?lite

Then, the most transparent administration in the history of the known multiverse says the DOJ, the most politicized ever under Holder, is now conducting an investigation of the incident, and will answer no more questions - period, until no doubt after the election:
http://thecable.f...i_attack
VendicarD
1 / 5 (3) Sep 16, 2012
AlQueda has Americans pointing their fingers at each other looking for culpability.

AlQuada plus 2
America minus 1

"the President of Lybia says" - Geplstr

Laughable.
charliedarwin
2 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2012
Hate speech ≠ Free Speech
charliedarwin
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 17, 2012
All religions have far too many "rights" and far too few RESPONSIBILITIES.
Please, everyone, research the 'Religion of Peace' and its founder-psychopath before according it ANY respect. In fact, add most religions to the list. Atheism is the only way forward.

Any religion that has a following that believes that is has the right to limit free speech in the wider world, is deluded. Not everyone agrees with Christianity. Not everyone agrees with Islam. Throwing your toys and demanding violence when someone disagrees with you is a sign of immaturity. No religion has the right to lord it above any other.

RadiantThoughts
4 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2012
its already been shown that they planned the attack before the video came out. the news are just as guilty now for perpetuating the false message that it was the films fault and we are somehow responsible. i find mainstream news quite frankly insulting in the way it projects. in UK its even worse with free speech dying and the first two people being jailed for tweeting offensive comments. so people can be jailed for causing offense????
alfie_null
5 / 5 (3) Sep 17, 2012
All religions have far too many "rights" and far too few RESPONSIBILITIES. Please, everyone, research the 'Religion of Peace' and its founder-psychopath before according it ANY respect. In fact, add most religions to the list. Atheism is the only way forward.

If religion were absent, perpetrators of this sort of violence would just find some other tool.

It's not simply religion, it's a mixture of culture and human nature.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2012
If religion were absent, perpetrators of this sort of violence would just find some other tool.
No, they would EVOLVE.
geokstr
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 17, 2012
If religion were absent, perpetrators of this sort of violence would just find some other tool.
No, they would EVOLVE.


Into what? Uncle Joe? Chairman Mao? Pol Pot? Fidel? Hugo?

I've been an atheist most of my life, and the record for my religion (belief system) is simply appalling. Perhaps you could survey the 100 million poor dead bastards about how much they loved the humanity of their own "evolved" atheist.
julianpenrod
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 17, 2012
It's supposed to be against the rules of "science" to ignore the facts and simply state that your prejudice is right because your prejudice is right. No one of those pretending intellectual invlvement in this matter and end up hating Muslims has looked at the facts. Nor will they. Like CIA/Mossad/MI-5 removing the legitimarte Sukarno in Indonesia and replacing him with Suharto who murdered three quartes of a million people. Or the West replacing the legitimate Mossadegh and putting in the dictator Reza Pahlavi who instituted the SAVAK secret police. Or Israelis murdering a hundred times four people in Gaza, including womnen and children, simply because a soldier was kidnapped, not even killed! Or the unprovoked invasion of nonaggressor Iraq. Washington is elbow deep in Muslim blood! They have already had provocation, but don't expect people pretending to think here to be aware of that.
freethinking
3 / 5 (14) Sep 17, 2012
Anyone who does not defend this idiot who made a video that only tens of people viewed, anyone who blames Christians or free speech for the riots deserve to lose their rights of free speech.

Why do Progressives support Muslim Terrorists? Perhaps they share the same goals such as to Destroy Christianity and the Jews, Destroy and dominate America, crush freedoms, control what people can say, do, eat, and work at.

Jews, Christians, Free Speech Advocates, People who love freedom, if you support Obama, you deserve to lose everything you hold dear.
rubberman
1 / 5 (2) Sep 17, 2012
"U.S. and Libyan officials are investigating whether the protests in Libya were a cover for militants, possibly al-Qaida sympathizers, to carry out a coordinated attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi and kill Americans. Washington has deployed FBI investigators to try and track down militants behind the attack."

If they are correct, will the militants not just shoot the FBI investigators as well?
If Al qaeda was targeting the US consulate, did they run out of rocket launchers, vehicles loaded with explosives and other heavy artillery? Angry mob isn't really their style.
Does the US need another excuse to deploy in the middle east? Well I guess another one wouldn't hurt, being as there are US troops in Afganistan, Kuwait, Iran...may as well totally surround the persian gulf. The US economy is dangling by a thread. The US won't buy arms from China...1 and 1 usually equals 2. War is the only thing left still made in America....
ryggesogn2
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 17, 2012
Angry mob isn't really their style.

Sure it is.
They use such tactics to get 'liberal' fools like rubber to do their work for them.
Islamists know they can't win a shooting war but they can win a war of wills when there are those in the west who have no will to defend their own, and others', liberty.
geokstr
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 17, 2012
"the President of Lybia says" - Geplstr

Laughable.

http://www.mcclat..._emailed

Well, McClatchy Newspapers, hardly a rightwing shill, has a story that says you are wrong and the Lybian President is correct. One of the Lybian security guards said that the consulate area was quiet – "there wasn't a single ant outside," he said – until about 9:35 p.m., when as many as 125 armed men descended on the compound from all directions.

Well, I think everyone should be laughing at you right now. Nice propaganda, but no cigar.
ryggesogn2
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2012
Can't you just imagine how the spontaneous theory emerged?
(9/ll/12) Ahmed: "Hey Mo'd, did you see the video on Utube last night? It made me so mad I am going to the US consulate in Benghazi with my AK to show them. Why don't you bring a few of your RPGs and some of the boys at the mosque?"
rubberman
not rated yet Sep 17, 2012
Angry mob isn't really their style.

Sure it is.
They use such tactics to get 'liberal' fools like rubber to do their work for them.
Islamists know they can't win a shooting war but they can win a war of wills when there are those in the west who have no will to defend their own, and others', liberty.


So, it's your position that the Islam extremists are an angry mob who kills US ambassadors yet, are afraid to start a shooting war with the US.
Pure genius...

"Islamists know they can't win a shooting war..." Yet the article implies that the US government believes they just started one. Ironically, I agree with you about Islam extremists and their fear of a shooting war. Hence the reason I implied that it is rediculous to sum this up as anything other than random violence unless you want to build an agenda around it...something the US government has transparently done quite a bit over the last couple of decades. Let's see who takes the credit for it.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) Sep 17, 2012
it's your position

It's not my position.
Iran invaded the US Embassy in 79 and Carter and subsequent admins did nothing for that act of war.
Iran, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia fund groups to sabotage and attack the will of anyone who supports liberty.
Most of Europe has grabbed their ankles for the Muslims while they riot and rape in major cities, including cities in Sweden and Norway.
The Dutch kicked out a Muslim woman who irritated the Isalmists. Why should Islamists engage in a shooting war when so many 'liberals' in the west roll over for them?
Recall the one of the last great appeasers, Neville Chamberlain, and the results?
ryggesogn2
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2012
" But the prize for disappointment goes to Petraeus and NATO Ambassador Mark Sedwill, whose statement read in part: "In view of the events of recent days, we feel it is important . . . to reiterate our condemnation of any disrespect to the Holy Koran and the Muslim faith. We condemn, in particular, the action of an individual in the United States who recently burned the Holy Koran.

"We further hope the Afghan people understand that the actions of a small number of individuals, who have been extremely disrespectful to the Holy Koran, are not representative of any of the countries of the international community who are in Afghanistan to help the Afghan people."

"But don't let's be beastly to the Islamists. After all, restricting the rights of our own citizens in order to appease people still living in the 7th century isn't much of a price to pay for peace, is it?

Read more: http://www.nypost...6ltbTqHh
PaxAeterna
1 / 5 (1) Sep 17, 2012
Anyone who does not defend this idiot who made a video that only tens of people viewed, anyone who blames Christians or free speech for the riots deserve to lose their rights of free speech.

Why do Progressives support Muslim Terrorists? Perhaps they share the same goals such as to Destroy Christianity and the Jews, Destroy and dominate America, crush freedoms, control what people can say, do, eat, and work at.

Jews, Christians, Free Speech Advocates, People who love freedom, if you support Obama, you deserve to lose everything you hold dear.


Anyone who believes this is about as far from American as you can get. I for one think you should keep your freedom of speach even though you've proven yourself incapable of doing any good with it.
ryggesogn2
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2012
doing any good with it.

What is 'good' freedom of speech?
ryggesogn2
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2012
" Let us be clear: Contest 2 is about ensuring Britain's security, uprooting terrorism and creating a proud, pluralist nation at home with liberal, secular democracy. It is about shifting the current lethargic thinking that surrounds Islamist extremism. It is not about appeasing activist Muslim men who lobby for Hamas. The Contest 2 White Paper must be more courageous than what we have seen from this Government to date. It should disregard the findings of focus groups, the self-serving advice of "community experts", and name the monster that we face: Islamist extremism."
http://www.telegr...ism.html
How is that appeasement working?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Sep 17, 2012
"Bill Maher made a film that mocked Islam.

Oh, yes, he did.
Maher was not mocking religions in 'Religulous'. He was explaining in very clear terms what they are and what they do. And so is this woman:
http://www.youtub...04QBpBMA
its already been shown that they planned the attack before the video came out. the news are just as guilty now for perpetuating the false message that it was the films fault
Yeah but all these islamic demonstrators are doing so BECAUSE of the film. The film was created and posted at the exact time when it could be used to justify the attacks and inflame the arab world. ON CUE.

Doesnt anybody think this is at least a little suspicious??

Social media was used to coordinate the arab spring, and again in this latest flashmob-type violence.

Europe was primed in just such a way that all it took was the assassination of an obscure archduke in 1914 to ignite a world war. ON CUE.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Sep 17, 2012
"Islamists know they can't win a shooting war..." Yet the article implies that the US government believes they just started one.
Islamists were able to take control of afghanistan and build a significant military in only a few short years. And despite the attrition rates from coalition actions over the past decade, they are again nearing military strength.
http://en.wikiped..._Taliban

-If you couple this potential to caliphate-scale organization throughout the arab world, You can see that islamists are very capable of instantly growing and equipping huge armies. Armies which are capable of overrunning israel and pakistan and securing nuclear weapons.

Their religionist rate of growth is tailored for world conquest you see. They have no choice - they either fight or starve.
freethinking
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 17, 2012
According to Muslim Terrorists and Progressives. Good freedom of speech is anything anti America, anti Isreal, anti Christian.

Bad freedom of speech or hate speech is defined by Muslim Terrorists and Progressives as any speech that may be offensive to Muslims or Progressive ideals. It doesn't matter if the speech is truthful or not, if they don't like it, it is hate speech.

Hate speech is to be avoided at all cost, unless it is spoken by Progressives or Muslims.

You gotta love Progressives their Terrorist friendsand their definitions.
rubberman
1 / 5 (1) Sep 18, 2012

"An angry mob isn't really their style"

RYGG - "Sure it is. They use such tactics....."

"So, it's your position that the Islam extremists are an angry mob ..."

RYGG - "It's not my position"

You are one sick little monkey...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2012
Doesn't this video use a copyright protected soundtrack?
Uh no.
Doesn't it contain gore and violence?
Not really.
If yes, why it was not removed already like millions of others?
Because it doesn't violate YouTube netiquette.
The YouTube netiquette clearly says, that the videos promoting gore, intolerance and insults of religion will be banned without excuses.
As far as I know everything in the vid is factual and based on actual content of Moslem religious books. But I could be wrong. I would like to see an analysis.
IMO its purported provocation
Well it would seem that your opinion is tainted... by your faith perhaps?

At least western religionists are under the impression that their gods and godmen are omnipotent enough to take care of themselves and don't need streets full of wailing pinheads to do it for them. That is, if they exist. If not I guess wailing pinheads is all they've got.
ryggesogn2
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 18, 2012

"An angry mob isn't really their style"

RYGG - "Sure it is. They use such tactics....."

"So, it's your position that the Islam extremists are an angry mob ..."

RYGG - "It's not my position"

You are one sick little monkey...

You asserted it was "my position" implying I am the only one who believes such 'angry' mob mentality IS their style just as it is the style of most radicals who won't use more direct means.
Riots ended the Vietnam war mush to the detriment of millions of Cambodians murdered by communists.
'Angry' mobs are the method attempted by the 'liberal'/socialists in the US to attack the will of their opponents.
Most parents understand that giving in to children's tantrums is a losing battle. Eventually the adults must understand the tactics and develop means and will to oppose them.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (2) Sep 18, 2012
Because it doesn't violate YouTube netiquette.
Don't forget, you're talking with person, whose accounts are banned and deleted repeatedly after posting of the single world, which doesn't play well with contemporary scientific religion. The moderation at PO is adjusted in the same way. From this perspective I do perceive the liberalism of western society as a pretty hypocritical stance. IMO the purpose of this movie was to convince the people into hate of Muslims, because these trolls do react to similar provocations as predictably as the bacteria or cellular automata.
ryggesogn2
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 18, 2012
"How wrong it was to accuse him of provoking those who sought to silence him—and for the British government to urge him to apologize as a way of accommodating Muslim leaders. In the past 23 years, we have learned a lot about the danger of giving in to the demands of extremists. We now know all too well how it incites them to demand more and to refuse reason and a peaceful settlement."
http://www.thedai...and.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2012
IMO the purpose of this movie was to convince the people into hate of Muslims, because these trolls do react to similar provocations as predictably as the bacteria or cellular automata.
Well hopefully if some good does come of it, it will convince people to hate the inevitable consequences of belief in superstition.

Like I say I haven't yet found anything presented in this film as non-factual, if not open to interpretation. It was certainly presented as satire, but lighthearted or not, facts are still facts. Are practices such as pederasty and rape acceptable today as they perhaps were when these books were written?

Geert Wilders film 'Fitna' is certainly factual and certainly not satire. But some of the facts presented in it are certainly laughable, weren't they so horrifically tragic. YouTube it at your own risk. It is certainly more violent and graphic but it too is still there.

Satire and irony are valid methods of presenting FACTS and provoking discussion. RIGHT?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2012
As usual, hitchens said it best and most unequivocally:
http://www.youtub...a_player

-HATE all that religion is capable of.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2012
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (1) Sep 18, 2012
Egyptian Muslim cleric: "
I issue a fatwa and call on the Muslim youth in America and Europe to do this duty, which is to kill the director, the producer and the actors and everyone who helped and promoted the film
"
freethinking
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 18, 2012
I have not seen the video nor will I. I will repeat, any idiot who blames this video seen by maybe 10's of people before the killings and rioting and now wants it removed from youtube or anyone who agrees with Obama and his administration that the USA should issue an appology for it, or anyone who supports the the questioning by police of the person who made it, deserves to live in an Islamic Country.
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (2) Sep 18, 2012
"the President of Lybia says" - Geplstr

Laughable.

http://www.mcclat..._emailed

Well, McClatchy Newspapers, hardly a rightwing shill, has a story that says you are wrong and the Lybian President is correct. One of the Lybian security guards said that the consulate area was quiet – "there wasn't a single ant outside," he said – until about 9:35 p.m., when as many as 125 armed men descended on the compound from all directions.

Well, I think everyone should be laughing at you right now. Nice propaganda, but no cigar.

What Vendicar found laughable is your spelling of Libya, again and again. You are the dumbest of the dumb, dummy.
ryggesogn2
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 18, 2012
" In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit."
Ayn Rand
Telekinetic
3 / 5 (4) Sep 18, 2012
"They (Native Americans) didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent." - Ayn Rand- Address to the graduating class of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974

You can stick Rand up your Aynus.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (2) Sep 19, 2012
Did she, (your hero), say that before or after she decided to apply for her government welfare checks?

"In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." - Ayn Rand

Curious minds want to know.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 19, 2012
Did she, (your hero), say that before or after she decided to apply for her government welfare checks? - Venereal_Disease


Here's another thing she said long before she received assistance.

"The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the "right" to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration." -Ayn Rand, 1966
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 19, 2012
And again,...

"Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others–the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it." - Ayn Rand, The Objectivist, June 1966
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 19, 2012
Did she, (your hero), say that before or after she decided to apply for her government welfare checks?


Can you prove that she received welfare, or is that another example of your 'huffington post knowledge'.

She received Social Security and Medicare, ...neither of which is welfare. Dolt.
Noumenon
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 19, 2012
Good for you Google. Its also good to see that magazine in France publishing images of "mohamond". In fact the free western world should publish such images by the thousands, for no other reason than to send the message that we are free to say anything in this part of the world, and won't be threatened by a bunch of religious ass-backward cavemen.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 19, 2012
"They (Native Americans) didn't have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their 'right' to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent." - Ayn Rand- Address to the graduating class of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974

You can stick Rand up your Aynus.


She was 100% correct in that statement. Your objections are likely emotional drivel.
ryggesogn2
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2012
Tele, aboriginal Americans invaded and conquered each other for thousands of years. Myans and Aztecs were quite vicious.
It's OK for the various tribes to attack each other?
BTW, more research is suggesting many east coast tribes in the US have European ancestry.
ryggesogn2
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2012
Do people like tele demand those of Roman, Viking, Saxon, Norman, Angeln origin return England to the Celts?
Telekinetic
1 / 5 (2) Sep 19, 2012
Do people like tele demand those of Roman, Viking, Saxon, Norman, Angeln origin return England to the Celts?


Why are you so gleeful about entire races being wiped out by genocide? How does mass murder in the past justify it today? I swear, when I read the crap coming out from your minds I think the Nazis won.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2012
Good for you Google. Its also good to see that magazine in France publishing images of "mohamond". In fact the free western world should publish such images by the thousands, for no other reason than to send the message that we are free to say anything in this part of the world, and won't be threatened by a bunch of religious ass-backward cavemen.
Yes and here we can sell outrageous sacrilege like this and nobody gets shot:
http://www.thetoy...s_id=379

-If you can stick your finger up kants butt why not some (other kind of) prophet as well?
Why are you so gleeful about entire races being wiped out by genocide? How does mass murder in the past justify it today? I swear, when I read the crap coming out from your minds I think the Nazis won.

They DID win:
http://www.yourlo...ca-logo/
ryggesogn2
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 19, 2012
Do people like tele demand those of Roman, Viking, Saxon, Norman, Angeln origin return England to the Celts?


Why are you so gleeful about entire races being wiped out by genocide? How does mass murder in the past justify it today? I swear, when I read the crap coming out from your minds I think the Nazis won.

I am putting history in perspective.
You condemn Rand for her comments on historical facts. Why not condemn the 'progressives' for their attempts at Empire over 100 years ago and attempts at genocide in the Philippines?
Methinks you protest too much.
Telekinetic
2 / 5 (4) Sep 19, 2012
Do people like tele demand those of Roman, Viking, Saxon, Norman, Angeln origin return England to the Celts?


Why are you so gleeful about entire races being wiped out by genocide? How does mass murder in the past justify it today? I swear, when I read the crap coming out from your minds I think the Nazis won.

I am putting history in perspective.
You condemn Rand for her comments on historical facts. Why not condemn the 'progressives' for their attempts at Empire over 100 years ago and attempts at genocide in the Philippines?
Methinks you protest too much.

You will never understand my point because you're heartless. The only possible way, and I do not wish for it, is for you to witness your own family being massacred.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2012
Yes and here we can sell outrageous sacrilege like this and nobody gets shot: http://www.thetoy...s_id=379 -If you can stick your finger up kants butt why not some (other kind of) prophet as well?


LOL, did you buy that to argue with?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (8) Sep 19, 2012
Yes and here we can sell outrageous sacrilege like this and nobody gets shot: http://www.thetoy...s_id=379 -If you can stick your finger up kants butt why not some (other kind of) prophet as well?


LOL, did you buy that to argue with?
It fits my middle finger best. Waaaaaaaaaaa!
ryggesogn2
3.3 / 5 (10) Sep 19, 2012
You will never understand my point because you're heartless.

I understand our point even though your are stupid.
I define 'stupid' as choosing to be ignorant.
Until very recent history, one group of people would invade and conquer another. Even the American Indians did that.
Europeans invaded America and took over from the natives 500 years ago. That's was the way of the world.
As a result of that, a group of rich, white men declared Independence and stated ALL men are created equal with unalienable and inherent rights to life, liberty and property. Quite a radical idea for the day. Sure, they couldn't snap their fingers and 'make it so' overnight. They had to secure their nation state and eventually a civil war was fought, by the white men, for the rights of blacks and Indians.
Only the 'liberals' believe in a Utopia. The USA and the West are not perfect but are orders of magnitude better than those who came before them and many in the world today.
Telekinetic
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2012
"I understand our point even though your are stupid."- ryggesoqn2

Okay now, class, let's read this again to determine who's the stupid one here.
Telekinetic
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2012
"They had to secure their nation state and eventually a civil war was fought, by the white men, for the rights of blacks and Indians."- ryggesoqn2

Aren't you even a little embarrassed by that? The white man slaughtered the Natives and enslaved the Africans, tearing them forcefully from their homeland. The sickness of your reasoning knows no bounds. It's typical right wing revisionism that makes the white man, both abductor and murderer, the hero.

Telekinetic
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2012
I wish you were running Romney's campaign, Rygges, just to hammer the final nail in his coffin.
ryggesogn2
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 19, 2012
The white man slaughtered the Natives and enslaved the Africans

No, it was white men that freed Africans. William Wilberforce in Great Britain and the first Republican, Abraham Lincoln and all those white men who died in the War Between the States.

It was their fellow African and Arabs who enslaves some tribes and sold them.
Before the Spanish arrived in America, who were the Mayans and Aztecs sacrificing? Natives.

Who murdered all those Rwandans? Black Rwandans.

Who murdered all those Cambodians? Communist Cambodians.
Who starved all those Ukrainians? Communist Stalin.

Of course one reason the US was so unpopulated when Europeans arrived were the diseases the aborigines were susceptible to.

Telekinetic
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2012
"In March the US begins secret bombing raids on Vietnamese communist sanctuaries and supply routes inside Cambodia. Authorized by President Nixon and directed by Kissinger, the raids are illegal, as the US has not officially declared war on Cambodia. In 14 months, 110,000 tons of bombs are dropped. When news of the raids is leaked Kissinger orders surveillance and phone tapping of suspects to uncover the source.
US bombing raids into Cambodia will continue until 1973. All told 539,129 tons of ordnance will be dropped on the country, much of it is indiscriminate B-52 carpet-bombing raids. The tonnage is about three and a half times more than that (153,000 tons) dropped on Japan during the Second World War.
Up to 600,000 Cambodians die but the raids are militarily ineffective. The CIA reports that the bombing raids are serving to increase the popularity of the Khmer Rouge insurgents among the affected Cambodian population."

You have no knowledge of history. You should run and hide.
ryggesogn2
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 20, 2012
"In March the US begins secret bombing raids on Vietnamese d War.
Up to 600,000 Cambodians die but the raids are militarily ineffective. The CIA reports that the bombing raids are serving to increase the popularity of the Khmer Rouge insurgents among the affected Cambodian population."

You have no knowledge of history. You should run and hide.


And this excuses Pol Pot?
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2012
ryggesogn2 blundered with a mere guess
Of course one reason the US was so unpopulated when Europeans arrived were the diseases the aborigines were susceptible to.
Obviously you have zero understanding of infectious diseases, disease pattern demographics or associated genetics, please dont make idle illogical guesses !
ryggesogn2
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2012
ryggesogn2 blundered with a mere guess
Of course one reason the US was so unpopulated when Europeans arrived were the diseases the aborigines were susceptible to.
Obviously you have zero understanding of infectious diseases, disease pattern demographics or associated genetics, please dont make idle illogical guesses !

"The decimation of American Indian populations that followed European arrival in the Americas was one of the most shocking demographic events of the last millennium. Indian populations declined by as much as 95 percent in the first century after the arrival of Christopher "
http://www2.hawai...003.html
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Sep 23, 2012
ryggesogn2 couldnt explain why populations where 'susceptible' ?
ryggesogn2 blundered with a mere guess
Of course one reason the US was so unpopulated when Europeans arrived were the diseases the aborigines were susceptible to.
Obviously you have zero understanding of infectious diseases, disease pattern demographics or associated genetics, please dont make idle illogical guesses !

"The decimation of American Indian populations that followed European arrival in the Americas was one of the most shocking demographic events of the last millennium. Indian populations declined by as much as 95 percent in the first century after the arrival of Christopher "
http://www2.hawai...003.html
Introducing an infectious disease is VERY different than any judgement of existing and long term prior 'susceptibility' as per your post ?

Spit it out man, what are you getting at ?

Details Matter, get to it please ?

ryggesogn2
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 23, 2012
I don't care why they were susceptible.
It happened.
Asserting the 'invading' Europeans intentionally wiped out peace-loving, Utopian aboriginal Americans is a false assertion.
ryggesogn2
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2012
"Health conditions before Columbus: paleopathology of native North Americans"
http://www.ncbi.n...1071659/

So much for utopian Indian life.
ValeriaT
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 23, 2012
It's no secret, that Google already blocked the anti-Muslim clip in countries with extreme islamism (which don't generate profit from Google ads anyway) and when it's saying by now, it will not take down it in western countries (which actually generate most of profit for Google), then it just maximizes a financial profit from situation given. If Google would really have some balls, then it would block this clip in western countries and it would allow it at Indonesia..;-)
freethinking
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2012
American Indians should be held responsible for all to deaths cause by smoking. If they wouldn't have introduced tobacco how many live would have been saved. I think I need to sue some American Indian tribes as my parents were addicted to tobacco and suffered injury because of it.

BTW, How hypocritical are progressives, they blame and want to bane a privately, badly made, viewed by 10's of people video, yet they take government money to make vile art that mocks Christians specifically P*SS Christ.

When will Obama and other Progressives appologizes to Christians for the government paying to produce P*SS Christ.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (4) Sep 23, 2012
When will Obama and other Progressives appologizes to Christians for the government paying to produce P*SS Christ.
Not before your churches pay taxes on their ill-gotten gains.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2012
ryggesogn2 mumbled
I don't care why they were susceptible.
Well that suggests you dont know why you wrote
Of course one reason the US was so unpopulated when Europeans arrived were the diseases the aborigines were susceptible to.
Its not clear where the rationale origin of that view above arose from, though you did try to offer some input on it in later posts, thanks.

Bear in mind that North American natives weren't there for long enough to reach a critical mass to enable lower infant mortality and manage diverse dietary issues which may not have been optimum much of the time. Of course diseases were brought with them long before Europeans travelled to the 'New World', it wasn't clear from your rationale just what these susceptible disease were and they certainly dont follow the normal and accepted patterns of infectious disease progression etc PRIOR to European arrivals...

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Sep 24, 2012
When will Obama and other Progressives appologizes to Christians for the government paying to produce P*SS Christ.
Not before your churches pay taxes on their ill-gotten gains.
And not before religionists apologize for trying to erect 10 commandment monuments in govt bldgs which start out by demanding their gods be acknowledged as the source of morality. And worshipped.
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2012
BTW, How hypocritical are progressives, they blame and want to bane a privately, badly made, viewed by 10's of people video, yet they take government money to make vile art that mocks Christians specifically P*SS Christ.


It's even worse than that. Obama (&administration) has repeatably stated, "I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video". This is a patently false statement. The U.S. government protects freedom of speech, so therefore it has EVERYTHING to do with that video.

If freedom of speech applied only in cases where such speech was uncontroversial and prosaic, it wouldn't require protection. It is especially necessary to protect in just such cases as the anti-Islam video guy. The U.S government therefore has everything to do with that video, and that's what the rag-heads resent about America.

Obama is an amateur. Also, that doppy video had little to do with those "protests" held on 9/11.
freethinking
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2012
So progressives support government funding of art that is vulgar, hateful,and anti christian.

Allowing anti christian hate speech is one thing, having the governement paying for anti christian hate speech thats another.

Progressives and terrorists have many things in common. One of the major ones is that they HATE christians and what christians stand for.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2012
freethinking blurted - perhaps sarcastically
Allowing anti christian hate speech is one thing, having the governement paying for anti christian hate speech thats another.
When I last read the US constitution I seriously got the impression the union was 'raised' initially on secular grounds, so the above action re contemporary government seems perfectly consistent and more in the spirit of the the constitution with that view...

Is any re-write of the US constitution on the agenda ? and isnt it idiocy to say '..one nation under god..' when isnt it obvious all nations are 'under god' unless of course he/she/it is a rather more intimate mover in all of them as a grand experiment in progress along with humans as a 'work in progress' ;-)

Certainly explains all the problematic issues with disease and the many failings of the human body and the significant continuous level of suffering the race in general experiences at so many troubling levels !

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2012
So progressives support government funding of art that is vulgar, hateful,and anti christian.
-In your opinion. What can be more vulgar than nailing a human being to a cross?
Progressives and terrorists have many things in common. One of the major ones is that they HATE christians and what christians stand for.
You seem to have this aversion to strong emotion FT. Why is that? Does it have something to do with being holier than thou? Turning the other cheek perhaps? You don't like hate but you're ok with the epiphany, yes? Which is more druglike?

There are many things to hate in this world, and people have every right to hate them and to express this hatred. I think it us right and proper to hate the kind of bigotry sown by the religious. I think it is ok to hate the kind of violence this bigotry engenders. I think we SHOULD hate religions which lie to their people about phony fairy tales and the promise of immortality and wish-granting and favoritism.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2012
What could be more obscene than displaying dried-up body parts of your holy men where anyone could see them?

And we all subsidize this vulgar obscenity by exempting those who perpetrate it from paying taxes. Why? At the very most only one out of the 1000s of sects and denominations is doing it right. The rest are at least annoying your god or gods, or downright pissing him off with their blasphemy. ANY religion will tell you as much about all the other religions.

So until you all reach some sort of consensus shouldn't you be paying your fair share for your social clubs like the rest of us? I am sure god will find a way to compensate whichever one of the lot are actually making him happy. You know, the Chosen People.
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2012
So progressives support government funding of art that is vulgar, hateful,and anti christian.
-In your opinion. What can be more vulgar than nailing a human being to a cross?


GhostOfOtto, why not address the actual point for once,.. instead I spinning the quote into another random direction? The point was that the Obama administration said they had nothing to do with the anti-Muslim video, when liberals received funding from the same government to desecrate the image of Jesus (who was an actual person btw).

As I said above, Obama is a rank amateur, to have even mentioned the idiotic video,.. but to go on and say that "the U.S. had nothing to do with it", is assinine,... becuase that anti-muslim's persons speech is protected by the U.S. gov.

Secondly, those rag heads constantly threaten the very existence of Israel, and don't even have tolerance amongst different sects of the SAME basic religion (Shia vrs Sunni).

Obama should NOT have apologized at all.
ryggesogn2
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2012
Mikey, a previous racist comment was made that European 'invaders' to the New World intentionally wiped out the aborigines. I was pointing many died of disease unintentionally brought by the Europeans. Susceptibility wasn't an issue. Racism was.
It was implied that whites enslaved the black Africans when it was black Africans and Arabs who captured and sold blacks into slavery to the Europeans.
And it is a matter of fact slavery is still practiced in Africa and around the world, today, mostly by non-whites.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2012
liberals received funding from the same government to desecrate the image of Jesus (who was an actual person btw).
Well I dont understand. You dont like it when the govt funds idiot art projects. I dont like it when the govt funds idiot religions. Which is more egregious? Which causes more damage in the world? Which COSTS MORE?

One persons sacred object is another persons doorstop. Religious lies need to be exposed and their influence on govts ended. Some would take offense at this notion. Too bad.

I just read about some young philo student getting a grant to 'explore' consciousness. By thinking about it I guess, and writing a lot. And speaking to other philos at dinners. This is also bad.
obama_socks
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2012
And you have the option to protest and even demonstrate (peaceably) against those things that you so deplore, since you find them so offensive. There is nothing to stop you from picketing against the Jews in front of their synagogues, against Christians outside of their churches, and you can picket and carry signs complaining against the Muslims at their mosques, if you so wish. But you do none of these things, as far as we know. You merely bitch and moan, fret and worry about these ancient religions right here in this forum, hoping to get a rise out of those who find your rantings nutty and/or offensive.
You will never change the things you most hate because you limit yourself to the people on this forum, as though you believe them to be the movers and shakers of the religious world. Why not take your message(s) to the Muslim Brotherhood and/or Al Qaeda or Hezbollah? Or are you too cowardly to deal with people in the real world and prefer to scream your nonsense for dramatic effect?
obama_socks
1 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2012
I commend Google for not bending over and ass-kissing Obama and his mob and the Jihadists. It's about time that someone takes a stand and defends the Right to Free Speech in the free world, that same free speech that also protects believers in religion as well as the non-religious and irreligious. Blotto screeches his toxic anti-religion views in this website, but is most likely a soft spoken mouse when talking in person to others for fear of being beaten to a pulp for opening his big maw to some burly guy who will take offense and blacken both Blotto's eyes.
Even after Blotto is dead and becomes worm food, there will always be others who are malcontented and lead discordant lives who will take up the anti-religion crap because they also will be unhappy unless they are making others unhappy. Only someone with a damaged brain continues to spew his anti-religion garbage online, but will never face his religious adversaries, because Blotto is too chicken to tell them to their faces.
LOL
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2012
@pussytard

-Say aren't you the lying flooding suckpuppet Piro/ritchie/russkiye/pussy/etc the fake ufologist/farmer/nurse/NASA worker/human being who doesn't know that Jesus and Joshua were 2 different (ersatz) people? Sure you are.

Yup, Jesus was the one who walked on water, Joshua was the one who fit the battle of Jericho. Jesus never fit nobody. Different testaments.

I have said this before, you should take a little time to research your idiot ideas before posting them. So as to avoid embarrassment. Although this doesn't seem to bother you very much.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2012
It does appear that in my era religion is (and should be) losing its influence but its sad to see how so many are still emotionally and hypnotically attached the less intelligent they are.

All realistically intelligent humans can use the good aspects of all and any philosophies to sidestep the delusion some anthropic deity was ever responsible for a mess of religious diversity - obviously not unitary AT ALL - especially including "suffering".

All religions, demonstrably, come from "Voices in the Head" from (primarily) males imagining a deity that cant communicate at all well either then or at any time to the present and there is zero expectation even faith led adherents have that he/she/it will suddenly start communicating any better as it raises the obvious important question "Why the f..k didnt you care until now ?"

Dialectic in respect of moral approaches has nothing to do with any (static) religion and moral imperatives can easily be derived from self evident first principles.
ryggesogn2
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2012
It does appear that in my era religion is (and should be) losing its influence but its sad to see how so many are still emotionally and hypnotically attached the less intelligent they are.


How arrogant!
There are, and were, millions of very intelligent people (Max Planck, William D. Phillips, Paul Davies, CS Lewis, Newton, Marlan Scully, ...) who are quite religious because they have the intelligence to know science will never completely describe the human condition nor will science comfort them in times of emotional need.

How many atheists consider themselves to be 'spiritual', but not religious?
You do understand why Roddenberry always had an almost perfectly 'logical' character in every Star Trek series?
ryggesogn2
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2012
moral imperatives can easily be derived from self evident first principles.

Do you agree it is self evident that all men are created equal with inherent and unalienable rights to life, liberty and property?
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Sep 27, 2012
ryggesogn2 isn't sure where he thinks he is going with
Do you agree it is self evident that all men are created equal with inherent and unalienable rights to life, liberty and property?
Well, lets not be sexist, lets be accurate as possible with requisite rationale:-

"Are all humans created equal?"
Obviously:- "No", whether in wealth, genetics, location, health or education opportunity.

"Unalienable rights to life?"
Obviously:- "No", Eg. some children die young with no reason in any part of the world, so many seem denied the right to basic life.

"Liberty and property ?"
Obviously:- "No", some & especially children in the 3rd world can start out with debt & be sold by parents !

Self evident - bah !
Rights are only reflected by practice, never by claim & have never been bequeathed realistically by ANYy authority other than an arbitrarily formed temporary local group at the time, in this respect we are mere primates with incompetent varied forms of governance by chance & hope.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2012
have never been bequeathed realistically by ANYy authority other than an arbitrarily formed temporary local group at the time,


That's what I thought, a tyrant that wants rights to be handed out to those he thinks deserving.
But Mikey is a philosopher king who knows what is best for billions of other humans and won't be shy about forcing them to comply, or be murdered. That's been the inevitable result of Mikey's 'self evidence'.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2012
One persons sacred object is another persons doorstop. Religious lies need to be exposed
I have found a very nice example of what would be a very expensive doorstop:
http://www.google...0d76f84d

-I doubt very much that goering worshipped this thing. Goering did have a shop which created many fine damascus items, one of which was a xian cross for sale on the collectibles market some years ago. I doubt he worshipped this either.

Interesting sidenote - towards the end of the war these artisans were sent to the eastern front where they all died.
freethinking
2.9 / 5 (8) Sep 28, 2012
Everyone calm down. Feds Arrest Producer of the Anti Isalm film there will be peace now.

Now here is a question. Since it is now known that terrorist struck first, then the Obama administration blamed this film maker. Could it be that Obama used this film trailer after the terrorist attack to stir up riots to cover up something about the terrorists?

Also since Obama has issues with anyone insulting Islam. Lets be clear, if you are a Christian you and the bible insult Islam as the bible and christians says he is a false Prophet.

If you are an athiest, you insult Islam as you say there is no God and so He cannot be a Prophet.

If you follow any other religion, you must be calling him a false Prophet.

People, be scared! Obama is saying DO NOT INSULT Muslims. IF You do not agree with them, YOU ARE INSULTING THEM.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2012
How arrogant!
How hypocritical! You would say these things about any religion but your own.
Feds Arrest Producer of the Anti Isalm film there will be peace now.
How naive! More conscientious objection and backlash to follow.
Now here is a question. Since it is now known that terrorist struck first, then the Obama administration blamed this film maker. Could it be that Obama used this film trailer after the terrorist attack to stir up riots to cover up something about the terrorists?
Uh no the riots happened because of the film. A question is whether the film was created in order to produce the riots. The producer is now conveniently in protective custody. The Arab spring was similarly contrived. The Reichstag was similarly burned. Pearl harbor was similarly attacked. The lucitania was similarly sunk. The Maine was similarly blown up from the inside. People have been similarly stimulated to react on cue because this is how Things are Done.

OOp forgot one - 9/11.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2012
If you follow any other religion, you must be calling him a false Prophet.

People, be scared! Obama is saying DO NOT INSULT Muslims. IF You do not agree with them, YOU ARE INSULTING THEM.
How two-faced! This is true of any religion including your own. Read your book. Pussy riot is sitting in gaol right now for dancing in a church.

By the by when your patriarchs are dissed, keep in mind that they are also Moslem patriarchs. Netanyahu started his UN speech by reminding everyone that a few millennia ago king David sat on the throne in Jerusalem, and this gives Israel the intrinsic right to exist.

But as we know these mighty kingdoms never existed, and since we know that bibi's Ashkenazi forebears did not originate in the levant, we can also diss this with a clear conscience.
freethinking
3 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2012
Otto, If you think he is in protective custody, there is no hope for you.

You are right, you DO insult Christianty or any religion if you do not accept it, however you are free to not only insult christianty by not accepting it, you are free to make anti-christian rants, art, music,etc. Not only that I will protect your free speech (as long as you don't go into a church to disturb/destroy/interupt, etc.) to do so as long as you protect my free speech to say I hate your position.

Problem is, ISLAM is now a protected religion, Obama stated that you should not INSULT their Prophet. You insult them you may now be into custody in the USA, knifed in the back in many other countries, or just executed.

Otto, you say religions are the same, then lets do this. I make a film insulting Christianity, you make a film insulting Islam. I go to Rome to show it, you go to Mecca. Lets see who leave alive.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (2) Sep 28, 2012
When I said
..have never been bequeathed realistically by ANY authority other than an arbitrarily formed temporary local group at the time
then ryggesogn2 got confused & imagined
That's what I thought, a tyrant that wants rights to be handed out to those he thinks deserving.
This is what religions have done. If you believe then you are deserving, if not then you are (often) persecuted.

ryggesogn2 goes on arguing against things someone called "Mikey" didnt say, wasting everyones time but realising the US consitution is only a vainly constructed 'hope' for an experimental new society.

But Mikey is a philosopher king who knows what is best for billions of other humans and won't be shy about forcing them to comply, or be murdered. That's been the inevitable result of Mikey's 'self vidence'.
Where has "Mikey" ever suggested:-

1. People should be forced/killed &
2. Results are inevitable related to 'self-evidence' - huh ?

ryggesogn2 cant understand basic social logic !
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2012
Otto, If you think he is in protective custody, there is no hope for you.
If you do not recognize insightful sarcasm then there is no hope for you. IF there was a conspiracy THEN his past would be a very convenient excuse to make him inaccessible, to both jihadis and journalists. I think this is a little too providential.
Problem is, ISLAM is now a protected religion, Obama stated that you should not INSULT their Prophet.
Sorry you want to source a quote where he is saying islam deserves any more respect than any other religion?
Otto, you say religions are the same, then lets do this. I make a film insulting Christianity, you make a film insulting Islam
There are PLENTY of vids and comments on youtube insulting islam in the crudest of ways. Obama has not restricted our access to them. Right?

Since you are too -timid? -indignant? -scared of facts? -to watch the vid in question, you will not have seen all the linked vids in the sidebar which make it look timid.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Sep 28, 2012
Otto, you say religions are the same, then lets do this. I make a film insulting Christianity, you make a film insulting Islam. I go to Rome to show it, you go to Mecca. Lets see who leave alive
So why dont you just go to a catholic pub in northern ireland and say something nasty about earth mother mary? Or even sarajevo. Plenty of xians in this world with the same sort of fervor as al aqsa brigade.

How about this - name one thing that your religion promises that islam does not? Name one thing that the quran requires moslems to do in defense of their religion that your book does not? Name ONE THING that moslems have done to people of other religions in the past that xians, or any other religionists, HAVE NOT? Or who couldnt be expected to do the same now or in the future, given similar circumstances.

Youve repressed your medieval propensities but have not written them out of your books. How can you expect moslems to do the same?
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2012
Mikey, if you don't accept the axiom that every human being is born with unalienable, inherent rights to life, liberty and property, the inevitable alternative, which has happened throughout history, is murder.
Therefore, if Mikey doesn't support the axiom, he supports the end results, murder.
Self evident because is has been demonstrated for thousands of years.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2012
ryggesogn2 is in need of basic linguistic & grammatical understanding of English & appreciation of the simple process of being able to properly format a question WITHIN the context of a discussion!

It should be obvious that my answer to your (odd & misplaced) question is that of an observation as to the status quo.

Obviously there is no deity which endows any people or group with 'inalienable' human rights, see my comment as to issue of many dying young & this also applies to the deity being unable to stop mad & stupid from causing suffering & death !

It doesn't matter whether any system of governance makes any similar claim because the PRACTICE is the temporary politics & governments of the time.

To remind you, in different words to help you understand, the US constitution makes a claim that it is 'self-evident that all are born with equal' etc, sad but obviously not true.

There is historical evidence all governments (incl US) have ignored that to suit themselves at the time.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2012
Obviously there is no deity which endows any people or group with 'inalienable' human rights,

No, it is not obvious.
It doesn't matter whether any system of governance makes any similar claim

History shows otherwise.

Mikey, you understand what an axiom is and do you know that the entire world's science depends upon axioms?
I state before, "we hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

Following this axiom has lead to many positive impacts for individual humans. Not following this axiom has led to the murder of millions of individuals.
Why do you support murder Mikey?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2012
Christians or Mohammedans make no difference - all religions destabilize the modern society. They should pay higher taxes for it. Paradoxically, in my country churches are supported from public resources.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Sep 29, 2012
Mikey, if you don't accept the axiom that every human being is born with unalienable, inherent rights to life, liberty and property, the inevitable alternative, which has happened throughout history, is murder.
Well ryggy it would be nice if this was the case but, obviously, it's not. Religions force the kind of growth rates which make it impossible for whole gens of people to have neither liberty nor the chance to own any property at all.

The only RIGHTS these people are born with, is the right to try and take property and liberty away from others less deserving than themselves. Their gods tell them they have the inherent RIGHT and further, the responsibility, to do this.

This can all be found in your book. The First Mitzvah, 'Fill up the earth' with more of you and fewer of them. YOU religionists are the Flood which are meant to purge the world of the unworthy. You know, those with no inherent rights whatsoever.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2012
ryggesogn2 doesnt get it
Obviously there is no deity which endows any people or group with 'inalienable' human rights,
No, it is not obvious.
Why is it not obvious TO YOU, what god has made a practical change in suffering, illness, propensity to death etc ?

ryggesogn2 cant understand his own thinking processes
.."we hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."


Your statement is NOT an axiom, it is mere CLAIM & badly written, doesnt include women, its therefore misogynistic.

And very easy to prove wrong, either from the notion of a deity or from practical treatment via governance.

Eq 1. Some are born with genetic defects, deformed & some have short lifespans, proof the claim is wrong, NOT an axiom one bit !

ryggesogn2 try to learn dialectic & convergence, dont make stupid claims you know what anyone thinks, makes you look foolish & childish.

One thing at a time, Eg 1.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2012
Why is it not obvious TO YOU, what deity has made any practical change in suffering, illness, propensity to death etc

Prove it.

Some are born with genetic defects, deformed & some have short lifespans, proof the claim is wrong.


Again, you intentionally misunderstand applying the socialist POV.
Of course no human being is identical to another. "Created equal" means each human being is created uniquely human and as such has the same rights to equal treatment, by other human beings, as any other human being.
Mikey preferred way is some humans are 'more equal' or 'less equal' and can therefore be treated differently by others. Unborn babies are 'less equal' and can therefore by murdered. Older, less healthy humans are less equal and can therefore be denied care and murdered by the state.
The axiom that all humans are created equal then means that the default positions of the collective of humans (the state) is that all humans must be treated equally under the law. (cont)
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2012
(cont) Being treated equally meas then that the state can only use it's force to protect each individual, equally. It cannot use its force to plunder one (or many) for the benefit of one (or many).

The fact that most states, including the USA, engages in legal plunder does not mean it is moral and violates the axiom in the Declaration.
Just because people commit murder, violating the right to life of another human, doesn't mean laws against murder should be abolished.
Just because a state refuses to accept the axiom that humans are created with inherent and unalienable rights and plunders and murders is no reason not to insist upon accepting the axiom and holding the state accountable for its plunder and murder.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2012
So ryggy what happens when people are born into a world where there is not enough property for everyone? What happens to your axiom then? Does your god designate a minimum amount of property per individual and then provide this for everybody?

No. Species will ALWAYS produces more individuals than can be expected to survive to maturity. This includes the human animal. This engenders a lot of healthy competition over 'property' and forces the search for new 'property', the divergence of a species as a result, and the eventual creation of new species.

And so nature disagrees with you. Any state which would guarantee property rights would necessarily have to forcefully limit growth and competition for said property. Does yours do this? It would have to be distinctly 'unnatural' if it did.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2012
a world where there is not enough property for everyone

What world is that?
Any state which would guarantee property rights

The govt is not supposed to guarantee the outcome of owning property, but to PROTECT your right to keep the property you earn.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2012
What world is that?
Any place where religion runs things. Gaza, england in the 18th century, japan at the end of the 19th century, pakistan, many areas throughout africa, india, etc.

Anywhere over the course of human history where tribes grew to the point where they were forced into conflict over essential resources, what you call property. This is the normal result of natures propensity to overpopulate. And once protohumans learned how to hunt the animals that were hunting them and keeping their numbers in check, contention over property and reproductive rights became the norm. Property rights were EARNED by those tribes which were most capable of winning them from the competition.

The only way to assure that all sides maintain property rights in todays world, is to have govts strong enough to do so. Religions are only more efficient forms of tribalism, able to apply this dynamic over ever larger and disparate groups of people. Religions usurp property rights by design.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2012
The govt is not supposed to guarantee the outcome of owning property, but to PROTECT your right to keep the property you earn.
Well I see we agree on something. But I dont think you realize that you are describing socialism.

No matter how hard they try, many people are not capable of earning the minimum property required to survive comfortably. This is exacerbated by overpopulation and unregulated competition. Govts are thus faced with the task of protecting those who cannot provide for themselves for reasons beyond their control.

In todays world this can entail proactive measures such as family planning and abortion which limit growth, efforts to ensure that women have meaningful alternatives to making babies, and the decriminalization of non-procreative sexual pracrices. It can mean preventing those most talented and ruthless from accumulating wealth at the expense of others not so gifted or depraved.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2012
But I dont think you realize that you are describing socialism.

No, I am not.
Many people are not capable of earning the minimum property required to survive comfortably.

Says who?
Millions of people entered the USA with NO wealth except for their intelligence, brawn and desire and became wealthy.
Socialists take away the opportunities for people to apply their wealth and then, to add insult to injury, plunder that wealth after they work so hard to earn that wealth.
Govts are thus faced with the task of protecting those who cannot provide for themselves

No they are not. Before the growth of the 'progressive' state, there were thousands of mutual aid societies and families that protected those who could not care for themselves. But that competed with the state and had to be eliminated, which the socialist FDR proceeded to do.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2012
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — Thousands of conservative Christians gathered Saturday on Independence Mall in Philadelphia to pray for the future of the United States ... at "The America for Jesus 2012" prayer rally.

"I don't care what the ACLU says or any atheists say. This nation belongs to Jesus, and we're here today to reclaim his sovereignty," said [Pat] Robertson..."

-In related news:

On Friday, over 1,000 activists gathered in Dearborn, Michigan, to rally against free speech, protesting an online anti-Islamic video...

"We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to sow the seeds of hate and discord against the religious beliefs of others,"...
organizers "seek an international law banning what they define as anti-Mohammed speech that would supersede American law."

-God help us. Leave us the hell alone.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2012
Auto, I dare you to publicly insult Mohammed and have the courage to give your real name and address.
There is no need to dare you to publicly insult Jesus or Christians as they won't track you down and kill you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2012
No, I am not.
Sure, you are. You assume unlimited resources and a static population. These conditions do not exist. In part because
Millions of people entered the USA with NO wealth except for their intelligence, brawn and desire and became wealthy.
-Currently, 8M people with no hope of employment exist. But I suppose a melting pot must spill some from time to time.
No they are not. Before the growth of the 'progressive' state, there were thousands of mutual aid societies and families that protected those who could not care for themselves.
You mean volunteer religionist groups which invariably took care of their own? Or simply did not exist where they were needed?
that competed with the state and had to be eliminated, which the socialist FDR proceeded to do.
-And thus eliminated bread lines, put people to work preparing for the next war, and built the Hoover dam. I dont see the problem here.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2012
Christians as they won't track you down and kill you.
As I SAID, not HERE and not at the MOMENT. Perhaps in some Hispanic neighborhoods?

As you didn't watch the hitchens vid I posted (but will sit through an hour-long sermon), you did not hear him explain this very condition HE faced in Xian strongholds in eastern Europe and Africa. You think your religion as a whole is making progress? I think it is just mostly DORMANT.

Progress would be in editing out all the nasty bits from your books and acknowledging that science has PROVEN that your stories are all fairy tales. Can you do this?

This country does not belong to Jesus. It does NOT belong to Allah, nor to any other god that does not exist nor prophet who pretended to speak for him.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Sep 29, 2012
Here you go ryggy. If you're not deaf dumb and blind in reality, you should be able to get something out of this. Hitchens is at least as entertaining as any vicar, and he will answer all your questions in only 15 minutes.

Go on, it's Saturday night, live it up and confess your sins tomorrow.
http://www.youtub...a_player
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2012
You assume unlimited resources and a static population.

No, I don't.
8M people with no hope of employment exist

Because the govt WANTS them to be dependent.
But there is a real solution IF the socialists really wanted a solution. But of course they do not really want to solve the problem.
"Thousands of Christians gather..." exercising their first amendment rights to free speech, assembly and religion to protest those who attack their first amendment rights like the ACLU and Auto.
Muslims protest in MI exercising their fist amendment right of speech to LIMIT the first amendment rights of non-Muslims and Auto.
But to Auto, they are morally equivalent.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2012
You mean volunteer religionist groups which invariably took care of their own? Or simply did not exist where they were needed?


"In contrast to the white societies, however, the United Order of the True Reformers and the Independent Order of St. Luke actually established their own business. In making this departure, the United Order of True Reformers vowed not only to "take care of the sick and bury the dead" but to create an organization "united in finance" as well as "united in brotherhood." The most durable of these black fraternal business enterprises were those of the Independent Order of St. Luke. In 1903, it founded the Saint Luke Penny Savings Bank of Richmond, thus making Maggie Walker the first black woman to be a bank president in American history. "
"The heyday of all five societies was during an era when millions of Americans lived on a scale of poverty which would be considered intolerable by today's underclass."
http://www.herita...m-mutual
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2012
"One of the earliest reasons for the shift in fraternal priorities can be laid at the doorstep of the medical associations. As early as the 1910s, the profession, increasingly fortified by tighter certification requirements which reduced the supply of doctors, had launched an all-out war against fraternal medical services by imposing manifold sanctions, including denial of licenses against doctors who accepted these contracts. One highly effective method of enforcement was to pressure hospitals to close their doors to fraternal members who used "lodge doctors." By 1914, Dr. Robert Allen in the Journal of the American Medical Association could state, with slight exaggeration, that "there is scarcely a city in the country in which medical societies have not issued edicts against members who accept contracts for lodge practice.""
http://www.herita...re-state
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2012
"As many of the leaders of fraternal societies had feared, much was lost in an exchange that transcended monetary calculations. The old relationships of voluntary reciprocity and autonomy have slowly given way to paternalistic dependency. Instead of mutual aid, the dominant social-welfare arrangements of Americans have increasingly become characterized by impersonal bureaucracies controlled by outsiders."
http://www.herita...re-state

Which is what the 'progressives' want, dependence upon the impersonal state.
Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2012
both ryggesogn2 & TheGhostofOtto1923
Cant seem to converge a discussion, both of you diverge and waste time with opinions which have no real connections with the topics or even tangents to those topics...!

ryggesogn2 needs to look at this link, mindful of the fact that just because you want something doesnt make it an axiom or make it true. Since you brought this up, the onus is on you to show us a proof of why the badly written statement in the US constitution could be considered an axiom:- http://en.wikiped...evidence

@TheGhostofOtto1923 if you maintain convergence on ryggesogn2's central illogical thought processes he will eventually light his own fart and stop bothering us, his contribution to global warming will be the only long lasting effect. It certainly wont be critical analysis or any practical means to progress what he religiously is attached to as an axiom !
ryggesogn2
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2012
show us a proof

I have. It is called history.
A very useful comparison is to compare the Declaration of the Rights of Man with the Declaration of Independence.

A key difference is in article 3:
"The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation. "
Another key point is it declares a collective right. Why didn't they say the Rights of Men? This would be a declaration of the rights of individuals, not a collective.
Compare this to :
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
The US Declaration uses 'MEN', meaning a collection of individuals, not the collective 'MAN'.

Read Bastiat's The Law written ~50 years after the French Revolution and he lays out the same reasoning, sovereignty begins in the individual, not the state.

How many govts have the French had since they went crazy in their revolution?

Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2012
show us a proof
I have. It is called history.
A very useful comparison is to compare the Declaration of the Rights of Man with the Declaration of Independence.
History is open to unclear delineation of reporting versus opinion between victors & victims alike & obviously open to argument, it therefore cannot be the basis of a proof with any tenet of rigour.
Differential analyses is also not the basis of a proof, your comments are not the basis of analyses either.

I will give you one clue.

The key word in the quote you are emotionally attached to is 'hold'. What is the rationalisation for that word in the secular experimental society of US constitution which demands separation of church & state ?

And.

You should realise much of the Provenance which led to the US constitution arose from http://en.wikiped...na_carta
& long before a middle eastern bible was translated & available to decision makers in the early 13th century in Britain !
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2012
Cant seem to converge a discussion, both of you diverge and waste time with opinions which have no real connections with the topics or even tangents to those topics
Well mike these discussions will go where they want to go and people will discuss what they want to discuss. Way it works.
Because the govt WANTS them to be dependent.
You fail to appreciate economic cycles of boom and bust, exacerbated by immigration and accelerating tech which is taking jobs away from people far faster than they can be created.
But there is a real solution IF the socialists really wanted a solution. But of course they do not really want to solve the problem.
IN ORDER for capitalism to work, people HAVE to be compelled to participate. This NECESSARILY involves visible examples of the consequences.

People need to know that they too will end up living in the streets if they don't work. Correct? Even if there was enough for everybody, people still need to suffer.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2012
"Thousands of Christians gather..." exercising their first amendment rights to free speech...religion to protest those who attack their first amendment rights
You missed this:

"I don't care what the ACLU says or any atheists say. This nation belongs to Jesus, and we're here today to reclaim his sovereignty," said [Pat] Robertson..."

-What is free about the implications of this? Pat wants only xians in office and creationism in schools.

I SAY that freedom of speech necessarily involves explaining to everyone about all the various religions are based upon disproven myths. Lies. And that religion itself is DESIGNED to restrict freedom and suppress knowledge, and create contention. I am sure you are well aware that Pat doesn't agree.

But what could be a more importent use of the 1st amendment than this?

I suggest footnotes in holy books that acknowledge, as one of many examples, that the original flood myth first appeared in Sumer. Proper sourcing is responsible and honest.
ryggesogn2
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2012
reclaim his sovereignty,

What Constitutional amendment are the Christians saying should be restricted or eliminated?
IN ORDER for capitalism to work, people HAVE to be compelled to participate.

People have to be compelled to freely trade? That has not been the experience for thousands of years. Ever hear of a Rendezvous?
It was an annual event in the Rocky Mountain west where the fur trappers would come down from the hills and trade their furs for supplies.
Who compelled traders to risk the journey and who compelled the mountain men to trade?
History is open to unclear delineation

What is unclear about "Men" vs "Man"? Don't words have meaning and haven't the consequences been well documented?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2012
Heck, taking the flood story from gilgamesh and rewriting itt with Hebrew characters and gods is exactly the same thing Joseph smith did when he redrew hieroglyphics with human heads and proclaimed that GOD told him they depicted Abraham and Joseph. A bald-faced, out-and-out LIE. Your books should at least be amended to acknowledge this. This is the only RIGHT and proper thing to do, now that we know better.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2012
What Constitutional amendment are the Christians saying should be restricted or eliminated?
Your xian superstitionists would do away with separation of church and state. So would Dearborn Moslems. How easy do you think it would be for me to dig up quotes saying this verbatim?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2012
Who compelled traders to risk the journey and who compelled the mountain men to trade?
And who cornered the fur trade in north America, ended competition, and ran the small businessman out of business? JJ Astor. Because the goal of competition is to eliminate the competition.

But I suppose all these trappers, given their druthers, would rather have been in a nice mansion back in manhattan like JJ Astor. They were compelled to live on the frontier, being eaten alive by skeeters and robbed by injuns because the alternative for them was starvation , and they knew it.

You're the one who keeps insisting that socialism makes people lazy. Nobody enjoys working at mcdonalds but western society provides many ways of compelling them to.

Alas, soon enough fast food will be automated. They already have beverage carousals.
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2012
eparation of church and state.

This does not exist in the Constitution.
Read the FIRST part of the first Amendment.

Mike_Massen
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 30, 2012
ryggesogn2 shows considerable naivity
separation of church and state.
This does not exist in the Constitution.
Read the FIRST part of the first Amendment.
It does expect church has no part to play in government see here:-
http://en.wikiped...mendment

Its quite clear.

Why havent you answered the issue re axiom, is it convenient for you to avoid clear issues of provenance ?

Are you on some form of medication ?

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2012
eparation of church and state.

This does not exist in the Constitution.
Read the FIRST part of the first Amendment.

Didnt say it was did I? You included the constitution caveat to mislead didnt you?

Did you watch the hitchens vid?
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (6) Sep 30, 2012
It does expect church has no part to play in government

NO, it does not.
Read some history.
But, for the sake of argument, say you are correct, atheism has been declared by the US govt to be a religion. Therefore, atheism can play NO part in the govt.

Your separation fantasy is needed for the socialist/statist to put govt above men.
The way the US was founded, the hierarchy of of authority was God, Man, State.
The atheist/statist/socialist desire is for the hierarchy to be State, Man.
Why do so many here argue to be dominated by the State?

An axiom is a self-evident truth, which is precisely what the authors, reviewers and sources of the Declaration observed.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Oct 01, 2012
ryggesogn2 needs to think:-
show us a proof
I have. It is called history.
A very useful comparison is to compare the Declaration of the Rights of Man with the Declaration of Independence.
History is open to unclear delineation of reporting versus opinion between victors & victims alike & obviously open to argument, it therefore cannot be the basis of a proof with any tenet of rigour.
Differential analyses is also not the basis of a proof, your comments are not the basis of analyses either.

I will give you one clue.

The key word in the quote you are emotionally attached to is 'hold'. What is the rationalisation for that word in the secular experimental society of US constitution which demands separation of church & state ?

And.

You should realise much of the Provenance which led to the US constitution arose from http://en.wikiped...na_carta
& long before a middle eastern bible was translated & available to decision makers in the early 13th century in Britain!
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2012
US constitution which demands separation of church & state

It does NOT demand separation of church and state.
It cannot with a govt that derives its power from the CONSENT of the governed, who may belong to various religions.
The socialist path, with the State granting rights, may demand its members be atheist, as Lenin stated.
Read the history to understand the context.
long before a middle eastern bible was translated & available to decision makers in the early 13th century in Britain!


Britain was Catholic in the 13th century.

"FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired."
http://www.fordha...arta.asp
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2012
Britain was Catholic in the 13th century.
-And the church was the state, and the people were very unhappy. Long before this the people worshipped trees and built stone monuments. Things were much better then.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Oct 01, 2012
So ryggesogn2 now confirms the Magna Carta is the basis for the US constitution but still cant see these claims are not in any way bequeathed by any deity in any work throughout all of history claimed to come from any god whatsoever.

A claim or a desire or a hope does not automatically become an axiom.

A claim, desire or hope can only become a worthwhile aim which has a chance of being accepted as a self-regenerative ideal, when it is practically expressed and maintained, this is rare and sporadic and that also does not make it an axiom.

History proves this rather definitively and regardless of any creed or constitution at any time, it substantively depends on the education and focus of those in governance at the time and as a consequence shows no logical proof from those actions that it is 'self-evident' because if it were, it would be pervasive at all times of governance and all over the world regardless of religion.

Clearly historical evidence proves it is not 'self-evident'.

kochevnik
1 / 5 (2) Oct 01, 2012
@ryggesogn2 atheism has been declared by the US govt to be a religion.
Atheism is to religion as a mouth is to an anus. They are connected at a logical level, but most people somehow know which side to eat with.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 01, 2012
confirms the Magna Carta is the basis for the US constitution

Is was one of many inputs to the US Constitutions and Declaration of independence.
A claim or a desire or a hope does not automatically become an axiom.

It was accepted as self-evident by those who created the document and history has shown they were correct.

Koch, it was the secular court that declared atheism a religion at the request of an atheist.

And Mikey as you seem to be hung up on axioms, mathematics depends upon them, but Goedel has challenged the fundamental foundation of mathematics, which challenges the fundamental foundation of science.

Maybe a better term to use is Heuristic. As billy Koen writes in Discussion of The Method, ALL is heuristic.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2012
@ryggesogn2 atheism has been declared by the US govt to be a religion.
Atheism is to religion as a mouth is to an anus. They are connected at a logical level, but most people somehow know which side to eat with.
Yeah youre talking about something like this arent you
http://en.wikiped...equence)
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) Oct 01, 2012
"The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion."
http://www.wnd.co...8/31895/
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (1) Oct 01, 2012
Israeli leaders meet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in NYC. President Amadinejad interviewed by Kim Bildsoe Lassen.
Mike_Massen
2 / 5 (4) Oct 02, 2012
"The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion." http://www.wnd.co...8/31895/
ie. 'said..' All this shows is considerable incompetence in phenomenological classifications & delineations. All classical religions are not functional & ONLY rely on these issues:-

Status,
Authority,
Punishment,
Devotion.

They all claim to 'teach' & obviously cannot from a static base, they can only claim, their claims mean nothing.

To assess atheism is somehow included in the above summaries is basic incompetence.

You'll note all court members are politically chosen & do not have to satisfy any requirement of knowledge or intelligence, they simply get to be chosen from the basis of Status & Authority, the two main attributes of all religions, rather ironic that !

Its also likely the founding fathers in US arose by similar paradigm.
ryggesogn2
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2012
Mikey, most atheists are socialists. Since they have difficulty using the ballot box to force people to live the way they think we should live, they file lawsuits.
So judges that agree with the atheist/socialists are 'good' judges?
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Mike_Massen
1 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2012
ryggesogn2 tried to argue from an imaginary position
Mikey, most atheists are socialists. Since they have difficulty using the ballot box to force people to live the way they think we should live, they file lawsuits.
What linguistic rubbish is this ?

You hide behind a nickname, obviously suffering badly, get help!

You make no sense and you cant even address people correctly, I'm out of this, have unsubscribed, get an education PLEASE.

freethinking
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 02, 2012
Based on the comments made by Progressives and the Muslim Brotherhood it wont be long now before the only reason for capital punishment will be for being a Christian.

http://www.youtub...yvZeU-IE
ryggesogn2
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 02, 2012
ryggesogn2 tried to argue from an imaginary position
Mikey, most atheists are socialists. Since they have difficulty using the ballot box to force people to live the way they think we should live, they file lawsuits.
What linguistic rubbish is this ?

You hide behind a nickname, obviously suffering badly, get help!

You make no sense and you cant even address people correctly, I'm out of this, have unsubscribed, get an education PLEASE.


You haven't been paying attention to the lawsuits filed by one atheist to stop people from praying in public?
If Christians can't pray in school why can Muslims be provided places to pray in school?
The point is atheists can't win public opinion and like good little statists use tyranny. Which must be why they are sympathetic to Muslims. They like tyranny, too.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2012
You haven't been paying attention to the lawsuits filed by one atheist to stop people from praying in public?
-Well this makes no sense. I often talk to myself in public.
The point is atheists can't win public opinion and like good little statists use tyranny.
Since when is your religion an all-inclusive one? You read what pat robertson wants - he wants this country to belong to jesus. And you AGREE with him.

If you ascribe to a religion - ANY religion - you are proclaiming that yours is true AND all the others are false. This condition is implicit in ALL the religions. Atheists only include your own on the list.

So atheists and you are almost the same thing. Only you are FAR more dangerous. Your exclusivism is only one reason why this is so.

You can never argue for equality among the religions because you dont accept that their beliefs are the equivalent of yours. Right? So stop trying.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (4) Oct 02, 2012
you dont accept that their beliefs are the equivalent of yours.

So?
If the school wants to have a public prayer before a football game, no one is forced to pray, no one is forced to believe. (Faith can't be forced.)
But rude atheists DO resort to using the force of the state to try and impost their faith.
I lived in Jeddah for 3 years and was never forced into a mosque to pray. I was forced to respect their laws regarding alcohol and other things, but I was NOT forced to work there and could leave anytime.
ValeriaT
3 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2012
It's not so easy to be a Christian even in the USA: 22 Christians Arrested for Praying in Front of WH. And vice-versa: not all Jews are hostile toward Muslims. Are you confused? This is what the contemporary world is about. The powerful people in it often have quite different motivations, then the rest of their own country. The religious wars are just cover of their own intentions. After all, both Muslim, both Christian and Jewish religion have many common points: the belief in God and in His love of His children. This is not exactly what the neverending seeking the enemy - as practiced with governments and leaders - is. It's up to believers, if they would follow their religion and the voice of their hearts - or just the leaders, who often have nothing in common with their own churches.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2012
I lived in Jeddah for 3 years and was never forced into a mosque to pray. I was forced to respect their laws regarding alcohol and other things, but I was NOT forced to work there and could leave anytime.
So you're not a woman then (genetically.) But what do you suppose pat Robertson means when he says that this country belongs to Jesus? That sounds restrictive to me. And prejudicial. And idiotic. And morally bankrupt. And offensive.
both Muslim, both Christian and Jewish religion have many common points: the belief in God and in His love of His children
Except none believe that the other religions constitute 'gods children'. They DO NOT agree on this. And in EVERY COUNTRY and jurisdiction in which on religion gains political power, they eventually demote other religionists. And as their numbers swell, conflict ensues, and oppression sets in.

Ryggy what was the state of non-Sunnis in Saudi Arabia? Same rights? Able to vote? Persecution much?
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (4) Oct 03, 2012
Auto, women live in Jeddah, too.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (6) Oct 04, 2012
-And women are forced to lots of things there.

"Married women require their husband's permission to depart the country, while unmarried women and children require the permission of their father or male guardian."
Estevan57
2.8 / 5 (9) Oct 04, 2012
Otto, you ARE restrictive, prejudicial, idiotic, morally bankrupt, and offensive.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 04, 2012
Otto, you ARE restrictive, prejudicial, idiotic, morally bankrupt, and offensive.
And you are a stalker and a liar as explained on my profile page and so your opinions carry little weight.

This is you esai

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion."

-Aren't you embarrassed little sickpuppet?
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 04, 2012
-And women are forced to lots of things there.

"Married women require their husband's permission to depart the country, while unmarried women and children require the permission of their father or male guardian."


There are all sorts of single women who enter and leave the country without the permission of anyone but the the KSA.
Estevan57
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2012
TheGhostofOtto1923 | Otto_the_Magnificent | Empire_man_otto | dumdogslickthemselves | TheMagnificentMasturbator | THE_ANTIPHILO | | lite | CruiseMissile2 | CruiseMissile3 | CruiseMissile4 | CruiseMissile5 | CruiseMissile6 | CruiseMissile7 | CruiseMissile8 | CruiseMissile9 | CruiseMissile10 | CruiseMissile11 | CruiseMissile12 | CruiseMissile13 | CruiseMissile14 | CruiseMissile15 | CruiseMissile16 | CruiseMissile17 | CruiseMissile18 | CruiseMissile19 | CruiseMissile20 | CruiseMissile21 | CruiseMissile22 | CruiseMissile23 | CruiseMissile24 | CruiseMissile25 | CruiseMissile26 | CruiseMissile27 | CruiseMissile28 | CruiseMissile29 | CruiseMissile30 | lite | and a cast of many many more.

Sickpuppets indeed.

Why does lite, who was created to downvote PussyCateyes, appear in a downvote on Pirouette in 2011? And Ritchie? and me? and everyone else that has disagreed with you in a post for the last 2 1/2 months?

You must be a very lonely little man.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2012
CruiseMissile? That's a new one - honestly never saw it. Must be someone else who doesnt like trolls.

Lite downrates me often. And youve been around since pirouette and before eh? Almost like you're... family...

Like I say that original Ghost_of_--- team was created to attack poor jigga/alizee/terriva and then used against me by a sickopuppet name of dick wolf.
Estevan57
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2012
By the way Twatto, using Google to find peoples' posts and downrate them after comments are closed, and uprating your own is just freaking wierd.
I had the mod show me the votes on a post from July and your sockpuppets are all over it. And you upvoted your own posts too...

And all of them had lites' vote too...

Magnificent Masturbator indeed.

You must have panicked when your rating slipped from 2.8 to 2.7, yes I saw it and laughed. So I looked at some old posts the next day, and wow! 6 to 9 votes of all 5s just for you! In tens of comment sections!
It must have been a gift from God to have that many people find your old posts and vote for their pals Otto.

Remember to thank Otto_the_Magnificent | Empire_man_otto | dumdogslickthemselves | TheMagnificentMasturbator | THE_ANTIPHILO | lite, they did you a great favor.

If they keep up, you may be at 4 in no time!

You are such a sick small half-man. Battleship much?

TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2012
Yeah dick said he was going to lay down the law but I think he just lay down and died. So sad.

Huh mods never show me anything. You must be their favorite troll.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2012
"Whenever I get to feel this way,
Hard to find new words to say,
I think about the battle days
We used to know.

Nights of winter terribly cold --
Fears of dying, growing old

We ran the race, the race was run
By running slowly..."
TULL
freethinking
3 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2012
Hummm Progressives, if they cant win an argument... lie... threaten... lie some more... then if all esle fails.... use sockpuppets :)
freethinking
3 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2012
More reactions of Muslims to art.

http://www.france...ir-fatmi

Maybe Obama can appologize and join with other progressives and ban anything that may, might, could, has a chance, offend all, some, any, or even one muslim, and join with muslims in insulting, persecuting and jailing of Christians. Oh wait... he already has...